Thinking about it further, maybe the "counterintuitive cause" was too SMALL a payload? I haven't looked at all F9 missions, but it seems that CRS-7 included the smallest payload among F9 v1.1 CRS missions. Smaller payloads would mean higher acceleration, i.e., higher G-forces. And the failure occurred between Max-Q (highest aerodynamic forces from the nose) and MECO (highest acceleration, I think). Thus, the squeeze on the second stage between the first-stage engines and the nose cone might have been higher than in any prior launch. Thoughts?